At the other end of the spectrum, on the other side of the world, with the system ranked best for sustainability is a country called Australia. Yet with the barest scintilla of democratic scrutiny, the Government and the Greens recently instituted a new pension means test based on the idea that our system is unsustainable - nay, a system of false entitlement.

As Government Minister Kevin Andrews said, "With the population ageing at the rate that it is, we've got to ensure in the future that we're able to sustain the welfare system, otherwise we'll find ourselves in 10 or 15 years' time in the situation that some of the countries in Europe are in."

Meanwhile, the OECD projects that Australia's age pension spending will be 4.9 per cent of GDP in 2050.

The $2.4 billion estimated savings over the forward estimates from the Government's deal with the Greens should have been used to increase the base pension rate up to the point where the change is budget neutral. Why? Because Australian pensioners on the full pension are living below the poverty line. They do not even have 'modest' incomes according to standards used by the retirement incomes industry.

To give some light and shade to these abstract concepts, regular hair cuts, bottled wine and the finances to run an air conditioner all count as a 'comfortable' lifestyle. The standards are also based on the assumption you own your home.

The deal had to be framed as a savings measure because of the manufactured idea that we have a pension sustainability crisis. Australia should be increasing taxation through the private pension system. Labor has shown that some minimal changes to tax on super earnings of more than $75,000 and contributions for incomes of more than $250,000 can generate significant savings.

Instead, we are left with an isolated change to the public pension system based on a 'deal' between the Government and the Greens where the Government agrees to 'consider' changes to superannuation.

It serves as yet another example of how bizarre, how warped, things have become in Australia that the debate over our pension system is on the same terms as that in Greece. Manufactured problems.

Comments (46)

Comments for this story are closed.

Stone Motherless Last:

14 Jul 2015 10:12:39am

I am not an authority on the Greek social welfare system but my limited understanding is that1. Greeks are paying for the sins of their fathers not necessarily the current pension cohort.2. Tax avoidance (estimated $200 billion euros sitting in Swiss banks) has contributed to their problem.

The recent changes to the pension system in Australia did not squeeze the non home owning pensioner, but instead targeted the high asset class of pensioner. I have followed the pensioner debate in Australia for over 30 years and I vividly recall the outrage of the conservatives and pensioners when Hawke introduced the asset test for pensioners in 1983. I was living in a wealthy coastal town in northern NSW and we had a local real estate developer who was subdividing the families vast landholding into residential blocks. He expected to net $30 million dollars and he complained bitterly at losing his pension. The Libs promised to reverse it but never did.

Chris L:

14 Jul 2015 10:50:05am

"He expected to net $30 million dollars and he complained bitterly at losing his pension"

I can believe that. There have been studies, such as the 2013 UCLA study and the 2012 Berkeley study, that show that as people become more wealthy they become more selfish and less compassionate. As groups become more wealthy the people become more individualistic, less social and community minded.

In fact the studies also show that the wealthier people become the less accountable they consider themselves, making themselves an exception to the rules and laws they expect others to follow.

It's only human, and more due to our evolutionary make-up rather than individual personality. Although, that said, there are some people, such as Bill Gates, who demonstrate that it's possible to become wealthy and retain a conscience.

Zing:

14 Jul 2015 5:38:45pm

"There have been studies, such as the 2013 UCLA study and the 2012 Berkeley study, that show that as people become more wealthy they become more selfish and less compassionate"

And yet, the majority of crime and violence is committed by the poor. Furthermore, the poorest nations are among the most violent and unpleasant to live in - in spite of the fact that poor people are supposedly more compassionate and less selfish.

So much for the studies. For all their faults, the rich make better neighbours.

harvey:

14 Jul 2015 11:17:06am

Yep SML, greed is greed. Its the itch that never goes away no matter how many billions of dollars you own. Just look at our prime local examples.

Greece is nothing like Australia. Australia is rated AAA by ALL 3 rating agencies. Australia went into the 2013 election with the highest rated financial health in the world. Thanks to Keating mainly and Costello somewhat, and a tiny bit to Swan.

However we are currently ungoverned and its so bad that the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, ACTU and ACOSS plus others are meeting very soon to map out a plan for Australia.

Because the LNP is right now doing nothing. Nothing for Business. Nothing for Jobs. Nothing for anybody. Except themselves.

deluded_jim:

"1. Greeks are paying for the sins of their fathers not necessarily the current pension cohort.2. Tax avoidance (estimated $200 billion euros sitting in Swiss banks) has contributed to their problem."

Your first point isn't really true SML. The problem is the pension system remains unsustainable. Way too many people of ages less than 65 are getting pensions in Greece. When your economy is a third the size of NSW with more than twice the people, you shouldn't be allowing such a large proportion of the population (particularly the under 65 pop) to be getting funding from the government.

Tax avoidance certainly doesn't help - but there is a general lack of reforms and lack of government interest in combating the issue, particularly around VAT (ie, GST).

It's too easy to pay or legacy your way into or out of things in Greece. That's the problem. If they reform pensions to means tested over 65 and they reform the government stats agencies and tax collection agencies to actually go after people who are not paying, as well as start promoting electronic payments more strongly from government agencies and the like, the problem goes away.

Its a structural issue. The whole place is designed to get money from the government while paying no tax.

IMBY:

14 Jul 2015 11:27:48am

1) Agreed. That is the problem when a country keeps on increasing its debt. Australia's government debt was removed under Howard, recreated under Rudd, grown quickly under Gillard, continued under Rudd and now slowed under Abbott. Still, there is no clear path to reduction

2) That is part of the problem. Australians could pay more tax, but we dont want to. We just want the government to magically provide services. Whilst there is lots of improvement to be made in the public service, the amount of funds is also important.

To avoid a Greece like scenario Australia needs to work out what it wants and if it wants it enough to tax a sufficient amount to achieve it.

Regionalgranny:

14 Jul 2015 11:58:26am

Your comments sound about correct to me.

When our current government refers to the 'end of the age of entitlement' I have some hope that they will work to correct expectations in the community and to do this they need to convince those who can afford to adequately provide for their own retirement to do so without feeling hard done by.

Unfortunately the best this bunch can come up with is to convince the poorest in the community that they are a burden and they had better get used to doing more with less in the future(no mention of the fact they have been doing this most of their lives). How politicians can look in the mirror each morning and like what they see, when the wealthiest superannuated are benefitting and will increasingly do so to a much greater extent because of the way superannuation is taxed(or not taxed).

If this continues, the cost of pensions for the poorest will be overtaken by the superannuation taxation benefits to the wealthiest in the near future.

Troy T:

14 Jul 2015 12:42:29pm

So, your logic would be for everyone to remain poor or stay on welfare all their lives, or never save any money for your old age and you are worthy age pension retirement. If you dare to work hard, pay taxes all your life and save some money for your old age you are too rich and should not receive pension. No wonder we provide incentive for people to spend, or remain on welfare all their lives. They are then worthy and proud pension recipient.

Have you ever thought how much tax has the millionaire developer or any other hard working, successful person paid during his working age. It is just the disease of envy that turns people against anyone who is more successful than themselves.

Age Pension should have never been asset tested. It should be a just reward for a person working for 40+ years, paying taxes and contributed to the society. To get back a small portion of what a person contributes over his/her working life.

I never complained paying taxes for 42 years, portion of which went to the age pensioners. Why are we now saying that only people who never worked, never paid any taxes and never contributed to the society or never saved any money for their old age should be worthy pension recipients. This is the type of incentive we are providing for our younger generation.

Very selfish attitude which is likely to haunt you when you reach retirement age, because the government's punishment to the current part pensioners will remain the same policy that you will be complaining about. Just wait and see. Unless you intend to spend your life on Centrelink benefits.

I don't think government has any idea how many votes it has already lost from the current and future part pensioners for such stupid policy.

Harp:

14 Jul 2015 1:10:24pm

Work choices No.2 will disagree with that one I'm afraid. For Australia, the current "pension" is barely enough to get by every week, never-mind two or more weeks without losing nearly all of it on the basics and the vile bills that never seem to end on every little thing around.

The irony of this problem is that every time people are paid more, particularly when employed, prices get hiked across the board. So we end up with a system of paying more, and needing more just to simply survive. The end result is higher wages, longer working hours, more unemployment, social Darwinism mentality, unavoidable dissatisfaction across the board.

How is that sustainable I wonder? If anything, this is the predictable result of a system gone mad, for Greece, and Australia. But what do I know, I only have a basic understanding of psychology versus economics.

Ann:

14 Jul 2015 2:01:25pm

The Greek problem is complicated, and is probably mainly caused by them using the Euro when their economy is far too poor to keep up with it.

Everyone in my extended circle who will soon be a pensioner owns their own home, so they stand to lose from changes to super that include the home and other assets, but I still think they are important changes. If one does well in life, one doesn't need as much support as others do.

JoeBloggs:

14 Jul 2015 3:02:13pm

The size of the black economy in Greece also around 27% of GDP which of course means the Greek tax take is all the poorer.

GDP in Greece is around $238bn euro. The size of the black economy is thus around 64bn euro pa.The average tax collection as a proportion of GDP by the greek government is 34% (which is low for Europe).The lost revenue is therefore 22bn euro pa.

Also note that the amount currently outstanding and overdue to the Greek government by taxpayers in Greece is a massive 213bn euro.

Add to that the fact that greek taxpayers (ie. the millionaires in particular) simply self assess and declare they earn under 10,000 euro and are never challenged by the tax authorities and end up simply not disclosing their income, ie. out of a population of 12,000,000 people only 3,000 state that they earn over 120,000 euro. Which is astonishing considering how many greek millionaires actually live in greece (60,000+ just based on property wealth alone).

The icing of the cake is of course the tax rule that exempts Greek shipping magnates (some of the wealthest folks in the world) from paying any tax at all. Note that the greek shipping fleet represents around 25% of the global maritime fleet and is estimated to earn 7% of Greece's GDP, ie. around 17bn euro pa. All of which is tax free .......

Need a bail out? ... no.... just get your taxpayers to pay their taxes.

Freddie Frog:

Once again the idea that we have a "modest" pension spend compared to the OECD or as a % of GDP is a useless comparison without looking at our welfare system as a whole and a per capita cost.

When you completely ignore the various other payments and our massive superannuation system, of course we are not going to look like a high pension spending nation, but that is highly misleading. We will most definitely face medium to long term challenges if we don't make the pension system more equitable.

The pension is a welfare payment, designed for elderly people who have not saved enough to cater for their own retirement or fallen on hard times. To that end, we need to limit its availability and amount to those who truly need it.

The value of the primary place of residence needs to be included in the asset test to prevent people remaining in expensive houses simply to receive the pension and providing their heirs with a lovely taxpayer funded inheritance. Those who have the means to look after themselves should do so.

And we need to combine this with superannuation reform to prevent well off people using it as a tax haven or others purposely spending their superannuation to then double dip into the pension system.

To this end we should limit the amount of non concessional contributions to 2 times the concessional cap, tax all earnings in retirement at 15% and limit the amount of lump sum withdrawals that can be taken from Super.

Ted:

14 Jul 2015 10:25:35am

Emily has highlighted the problem but comes up with the wrong answer, ie, increased taxes. No. We do have a growing problem coming but our then government 20 years ago tried to do something about it by making superannuation compulsory.

Unfortunately the superannuation rules are flawed. They can and are being used for widespread tax avoidance costing some part of $50 billion pa instead of being used to finance retirement as intended. And the money can be taken as a lump sum so that retirees can still access the pension.

Fix these two problems and the crisis is over. Unfortunately Tony Abbott has come out in enthusiastic support for tax avoidance so don't look for a solution too soon. And Labor also needs to come up with something a whole lot better.

Boris B:

14 Jul 2015 10:30:33am

The government's decision to increase the asset tapering rate from $1.50 to $3.00 per thousand dollars of assets is so very shortsighted, even stupid. It will not result in any savings at all because at the tapering rate of $3.00 per thousand dollars of assets, provides such incentive to dispose of assets (spend) and get full pension. Therefore, the projected savings are plainly ridiculous. Something as hypothetical and unrealistic as that could only have been made by the Canberra Public service. They actually calculated savings on the premise that everyone would do exactly as government wants them to do. The government would increase the asset tapering rate and the pensioners would calmly agree to lose their part-pension. How naive is that?!

I have already suggested to my (part-pensioners) parents to sell $20,000 worth of investments and take the trip around the world. The beauty of it all is that on return home, they get increase in their pension of $60.00 per fortnight or $1,560 a year. That is the real incentive the government and the Greens have provided. How smart is that?!

Every part-pensioner has been provided with the same incentive - to dispose of their assets until they reach the full pension.

Such shortsighted, even stupid idea, which will make many part-pensioners asset poorer, however it will also result in the increase the pension budget outlay. Where are the savings?!

unitOperational:

Duncan S:

14 Jul 2015 10:41:30am

Whatever level it is set at, the pension assets test should include all assets including the home.Without that, people who choose to wall off wealth in expensive homes will continue to qualify for a pension for which people witth the same wealth, productively invested, do not.This is fair and sensible, but suggest it in public and you will be howled down as wanting to tax the family home.This kind of social stupidity is what got Greece where it is today.

deluded_jim:

Ah Emily... nice try but just because our pension system is better than Greece's doesn't make it impervious to criticism.

You are right that Kevin Andrews is taking things to the extreme and as usual, is trying to scare people, but the truth lies somewhere between you and him.

Firstly, Greece's pension problem is mostly due to the number of under 65s that get it through corrupt and poor practices. You can be 26 and get a pension in Greece. Its problem lies not in how much they pay individuals but how many people they pay. Australia and Greece are scarcely comparable.

Under its current model, Australia's model is unsustainable as both the far left and far right in Australia recognise. You can't take pensions by themselves without considering them relative to all other aspects of GDP. Cost of living is increasing in the majority of baskets, so pensions, therefore, will need to increase in line with this cost of living expense.

Sensible reform is required to superannuation and pensions to make sure that people who don't need government support don't get it. So while Australia's problem isn't Greece's let's not hold the Australian system up as flawless either.

my alter ego:

14 Jul 2015 10:59:19am

Let's be clear that many reforms that the Greek government has undertaken to legislate in the next few days date back to its admission to the Euro in 2001 when it pledged to commence its so-called path towards the Growth and Stability Pact.

Actually many of the pension reforms had been implemented in the last five years. The problem was they were disingenuously written not to take effect until well into the future, leading to a stampede for early retirement and in fact exacerbating the pension crisis. Until only a few months ago a profession such as hairdresser was eligible for the same early retirement as a miner or construction worker. I don't mean to judge people's choice of work but ostensibly the former shouldn't be as physically damaging to the body as the latter two.

As the article points out, in Australia less of these stingy swipes at the pension are merited when removing the superannuation tax <concessions>, which primarily supercharges the contributions of those that in fact need less assistance to retire independently of the pension, would see a nice chunk of previously foregone income materialise.

Brian Francis:

14 Jul 2015 11:01:58am

EmilyA 'crisis' is as perceived.This is not a construct of the Australian Government nor is is it equal to the Greece situation. It is however something to be addressed by Australians living in a wealthy country enjoying a lifestyle.'Thinking' requires one to consider all factors and possibilities from past,present and future. It is not an area specific to a political Party nor is it only a commercial product. Should we as Australians, not take reasonable steps to allay future problems then our issues may well overwhelm us should they at anytime, confront us.The 'Climate Change' international debate is a point in question. Some things are facts and some are educated guesses, but there is a general tendency to exaggerate in order that the public be warned and wary.Pensions at present in Australia, may or may not need addressing. To compare our situation to Greece may be exaggerating. However it is clear we are all prone to exaggeration given the loudness of social media and the ability of non-resourced participants such as myself, to have a say.

Larrycurlymo:

14 Jul 2015 11:11:27am

I think Emily that you are comparing the current situation in Greece with the current one in Australia and saying 'see, not similar'. But what a government (of any flavour) must do is look forward to what the future holds and make adequate contingency so we don't end up like Greece. That's called planning, thinking ahead, good management, living within your means, putting something away....Perhaps Per Capita should store its nuts away until winter? :)

Dubble Dee Solution:

14 Jul 2015 11:56:06am

"Yet with the barest scintilla of democratic scrutiny, the Government and the Greens recently instituted a new pension means test based on the idea that our system is unsustainable - nay, a system of false entitlement."

The problem might be that people whose retirement income is guaranteed and assured to provide them with a very comfortable standard of living are making decisions on the retirement incomes of the rest of us!

evilgenius:

14 Jul 2015 12:02:34pm

Malcolm turnbull on the 7:30 report last night made a very telling statement. He that in politics today over exaggeration, hyperbole and hysteria were the means in which to get the message across. If its not a full blown crisis then it seems no one pays attention.

Hudson Godfrey:

14 Jul 2015 12:07:37pm

The political code and the reality seem to me to diverge when we look at whether pensions here or in Greece are sustainable. I think we would do well to look at the meaning both pensions and sustainability hold for us.

I find it objectionable that, whereas sustainability is something that you plan for, knowledge of how much wealth has somehow dribbled up into the hands of the top few percent won't come as news to those doing the planning, yet they plan to talk about austerity for recipients instead.

The path of least resistance that sees raising taxes a virtual impossibility is the real failure that visits austerity upon those least deserving of it.

Robert:

14 Jul 2015 12:16:41pm

Please! The recent changes were perfectly justifiable and all about making sure welfare is only directed to people that need welfare. I am all for a generous pension to allow pensioners to live in dignity, provided it is tightly targeted. People that own a million dollars in assets outside their family home that may also be worth millions do not need my taxes distributed to them.

Harp:

14 Jul 2015 2:18:56pm

The interesting part for Australia's system, is that despite all these tightened rules and regulations, they are still stripping away at the very institutions that are fundamental to the running of the system. Cost-cuts are one thing, but madly lashing out unrealistic demands with no oversight?

Indeed the very idea of seeking employment with such a group, like Centrelink for example seems to be an exercise in futility right now. Granted it is a nightmare to get anything done as things are, but it is only guaranteed to get worse the more you cut away.

I'm starting to think Australia loves being in constant socio-economic upheaval. Drama and suspense! That should be our new slogan. Maybe even get it trademarked so it can look dashing next to our Team Australia theme.

Argus Tuft:

14 Jul 2015 12:16:59pm

As a 67 year old recipient of an Australian OAP, I wish there were more schemes to encourage me to maintain a level of productivity in return for my pension.

At present, I can volunteer for meals on wheels or at the local Soup Kitchen, but I would like something a little more imaginative. I have a science degree but no teaching qualification. Is there not some way that I could be fast tracked into a high school maths or science classroom; even in some support-technical role?

Education is an obvious fast track to a national economy, capable of supporting a generous pension scheme for those with no other options.

Why are we not recruiting these experienced mature aged for their scientific and mathematical literacy, to teach our kids the subjects they will apparently need to survive in the emergent STEM economy?

bananas:

14 Jul 2015 6:09:00pm

AT, I believe there are fast track schemes for people with qualifications, such as yourself, to become a teacher. Look to your state education department for guidance but from what I know you can do a 1 year post-graduate degree or TAFE course.

G. Andries:

J:

14 Jul 2015 12:59:26pm

They will have a pension crisis in a few decades if they can't sort out the housing affordability crisis now. Because whatever the burden on the budget that aged pensioners are currently, they are for the most part, home owners. Fast forward 50 years and think what the costs will be if a significant proportion of aged pensioners need rent assistance...

thommo:

14 Jul 2015 1:13:07pm

I agree with Emily's commentary. The Federal Govt has implement a grossly unfair policy by changing the assets test for aged pensioners. They did so without warning and stuffed up retirement plans for several hundred thousand part age pensioners. Many part age pensioners retired on 'good' advice before Jan 2015 to take advantage of Centrelink's deeming income rules, only to have the rug pulled from under them by the unfair changes to the assets test. The age pensioners on the bottom rung of the ladder (so to speak - ie those with no or very few assets) will get an extra stingy $15 per week (a damn insult) instead of giving them an extra $100 per week, while most won't get any extra benefit, but several hundred thousand will lose the part age pension altogether as from 1.1.17. They wouldn't even 'grandfather' those recipients already in the system, and their retirement plans are now torn to shreds. Those adversely will be enough in number to kick this govt out of office come next election.

mt_syd:

Petrus P:

14 Jul 2015 3:05:57pm

"...Those adversely will be enough in number to kick this govt out of office come next election..."

I also believe that the government grossly miscalculated the anger and number of people affected by the changes. It will be a rather large block of the previously loyal coalition supporters. I think this is already reflecting in the polls. Swinging voters swing in all directions, however, part-pensioners appear to have swung away from the government - permanently.

mt_syd:

14 Jul 2015 1:35:36pm

The Greens have been asking for reforms to the entire super system for a while, but the current LNP government is not up for that, despite the fact that the cost of superannuation will soon be greater than the cost of the entire aged pension, and that most of that flows to high income groups.

Lets also not forget that Abbott promised no changes or cuts with regard to super, but immediately broke that promise by changing the rules for low income earners so that they now pay more tax on super than they do on their income.

So basically we have a regressive super system.

The deal the LNP did with the Greens to change pensions (another broken promise by Abbott "no change to pensions..."), was a good one. It means that people who own a home and on top of that have a million dollars of assets will no longer receive any pension.

There is no reason why people with this level of wealth should be receiving a pension.

Ben Nallay:

14 Jul 2015 2:44:52pm

"change pensions (another broken promise"

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I remember something about 2017, maybe even September but that's not as reliable. There are no changes to pensions until after the next election are there? Think of your reputation, Syd or your insults might lose some authenticity, and that's not productive anger management.

Applaudanum:

14 Jul 2015 6:33:00pm

That is exactly the conundrum, Petrus. The 'Spend all your money or bludge all your life and get the pension' vs 'Look after yourself and don't get the pension'. My father mentioned this to me a quarter of a century ago in roughly those terms.

The conundrum comes about because the pension is now being regarded as a 'reward' rather than as 'welfare'. By regarding it as a reward, everybody wants to get on on it because 'Hey I earned the rewards too, you know'. If we instead regarded it as welfare, and maintained it at welfare levels, citizens might decide they don't want to 'end up on welfare' and start to make more responsible retirement plans.

Ben Nallay:

14 Jul 2015 7:32:12pm

How would you feel if you had worked hard all your life on minimum wages Petrus, and never got paid enough to save any money? Would you feel proud because you worked so hard all your life or ashamed because you got ripped off so much all your life? Which one would you see yourself as? Would you perhaps consider yourself an evil greedy hard-working poor man? That would be quite an original thought.

How would you feel if you put fifty years - your entire life - into working hard and paying tax gladly because you knew when you got old you had the pension to take care of you in your old age, Petrus, and then after fifty years when you got too old to stand up all day and carry heavy things around, and you quit, and the government tells you to go to hell because they screwed up the pension plan and you're suddenly too young to get old? Would you think that's an honourable way to get done by Australia Fair?

Who in your opinion should be forced onto the street to die of starvation or freeze to death tonight, Petrus?

1. The Petrus who worked hard fifty years for low wages and grew old with nothing to show for it, or

2. The Petrus who hired Petrus #1 and broke his back and screwed him over in the money for fifty years?

Maxx:

reaver:

14 Jul 2015 3:12:58pm

The changes to the pension are being made now so that there will be no crisis later. The Greek crisis was caused by the Greek governments and people "kicking the can down the road", that is to say putting what was need off until later on the grounds that it was easier to say that they would deal with it later than to do the needed fixes. That is not a path that Australia should go down too.

rossnhoj:

14 Jul 2015 3:43:33pm

There are more Greek pensioners along with their extended families living in other countries but still as Greeks and with Greek traditions Greek pensions with property in Greece and in these other countries they operate and live in as a co-ordinate dual citizenship life style, This 98 Billion hand out is very good news for them , more help more benevolence and bail out compassion --thank you France Germany England including Mr. Russia Mr Putin .

Maynard:

14 Jul 2015 3:55:39pm

Obviously all social welfare has to be paid for by someone and we know the cost of it. Now none of us want to tip people out of their houses but this asset should be used after death to pay for paid social welfare. Basically if I want a pension and have a significant asset like a house the government should take a first mortgage over that asset and after my death use that asset to meet the payments made whilst on social welfare (pension). This would be a just an equitable approach to all social welfare. Those with no assets would not be discriminated against and more money would be available for welfare.

Geoff:

14 Jul 2015 4:28:03pm

At the age of 65 I got on the pension. I didn't need a pension but my wife nagged me into it.Our family has always prided itself on independence and self sufficiency. It was a part pension but the lurks were unbelievable! Free health, chemist for peanuts, No licence fees, cuts to utility payments...on and on and on it went.To qualify I could have owned a $10 000 000 mansion and have a million bucks in the bank!TRUE!! Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the Tooth Fairy all wrapped up in one ! Also....We could earn $75 000 each year and....get this....NO TAX!! WOW!This type of largesse is rediculous. Historically pensions were for the poor and needy. It was great to see the Greens siding with the Liberals to do a 'Robin Hood' and take the pension off those on the rich list and give these savings to those at the bottom of the pile. Remember, Greece got in a pickle by doling out money it didn't have. We will go down the gurgler too if we don't tighten the welfare system......Oh!...and a happy ending! We are both now self sufficient, off the pension ....and proud of it!

Applaudanum:

14 Jul 2015 4:54:54pm

So the Lib-Green scheme has numbers referenced in the article, yet the Labor scheme doesn't have numbers referenced in the article and relies on descriptors such as 'minimal changes' and 'significant savings'.